Ashok Kumar v. Gurjinder Singh






    
 
   

    

      

   



 

    
!

  "

    ! !"# %

 #

  

''''

!

  "

 #  
("  )&   %

 * 

"

   ",



-# .&  *+# /0

2



"

  



"

2

 , 2 

 ""



45

,

+ 

.&  

6"# ) &"

6&#  !$!

7,#

&" !

"

 1%"

# .&   6&

"" .&   "

1%"

# 6& !

"+

% +

##8 "

, .&   



"

  1%"

# .& &  

1%"

# 6&

    





 

*"

2 * 

   9 

/0

2

 %

2 ,

  9 

 "

 

% .

".

"

. Kiran Singh and others versus Chaman

 Paswan and others, 1954 AIR SC, 340, 

<   % + & +

+

 *



% 

 

  =

 #



 

 > ,

& 

"

  2  2 

%"

.

 

 3



"" .&"

& 

"

*  & 

  )& 



""

& ,

"

 = ,% 



2 

 

 %

3

& .

&% *   "



"

2 

2  "+



+

# 3 ,2 

* "" ,"

 )&

Niranjan Lal (Dead) by his Legal Representatives versus Chhotey Lal, 1989 (1) RCR (Rent) 132 &

.&  ,

* 



 %"*"

+

% 

!



1%"





.& 

 ,

+



 " # 2

 * <  *

 # "    "

"

3  !2"

, . 

Narain Kumar versus Neki Ram and others, 1984 (1) RCR (Rent) 362.

4 = Radhey Sham versus Gobind Lal and others, 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 343, , 

.& 

<  .&  ,

# 2

 * <   =

 

 "Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that no objection to the place of suing should be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. The objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised in the suit by the contesting defendants it could not be raised in the execution proceedings.

- )&

Subhash Mahadevasa Habib versus Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 662    "24. What is relevant in this context is the legal effect of the so$ called finding in O.S. No. 4 of 1972 that the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 was passed by a court which had no pecuniary jurisdiction to pass that decree. The Code of Civil Procedure has made a distinction between lack of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas, an inherent lack of jurisdiction may make a decree passed by that court one without jurisdiction or void in law, a decree passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction does not automatically become void.

At best it is voidable in the sense that it could be challenged in appeal therefrom provided the conditions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. It may be noted that Section 21 provided that no objection as to place the suing can be allowed by even an appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

 been a consequent failure of justice. Section 21A also was introduced in 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977 creating a bar to the institution of any suit challenging the validity of a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing. The amendment by Act 104 of 1976 came into force only on 1.2.1977 when O.S. No. 4 of 1972 was pending. By virtue of Section 97(1)(c) of the Amendment Act, 1976, the said suit had to be tried and disposed of as if Section 21 of the Code had not been amended by adding sub$Section (2) thereof. Of course, by virtue of Section 97(3) if Section 21A had to be applied, if it has application. But then, Section 21A on its wording covers only what it calls a defect as to place of suing.  =

.& 

%"



  "

#

%

.& 



# #

 ,

  "



,

,

# .

  

 

,

" 

/0 ,&"+

2

 #  &#

   

 % "

&  ?



%"

 %



2 

@ $ "

""+# 

2



2 # ""

2 "" 

"  
#

+# &""

"



#

 "



.

"

*  %

< & 2

,

= =7/

$ $ A$9 & >+#  >B / S. Pathania Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No

 A& & 

*" C D